JAIN, J. - (1.) THE first case is a petition under Section 482, Cr. P. C. , 1973 against the order of the learned Sessions Judge, Sri Ganganagar dated October 31, 1984 by which he dismissed the revision petition filed against the order of the learned Munsiff-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Sri Ganganagar holding that the reports submitted by the Police under Section 174, Cr. P. C. , cannot be treated as a report under Section 173, Cr. P. C. for the purpose of taking cognizance on it and the petition moved will be treated as complaint. THE facts of the case may be summarised thus.
(2.) IN January 1978, the petitioner's daughter Mst. Neelam was married with Tarasingh Kumar son of Banarasidas at Sriganganagar. On July 7, 1978 at 6 P. M. , she was brought to General Hospital, Sri Ganganagar in a seriously burnt condition and was declared deal there. The same day, the medical jurist sent a note about it to the S. H. O. , Kotwali, Sri Ganganagar for information and necessary action. On its basis, a case under Section 174, Cr. P. C. was registered. On the request of the police, post mortem examination was conducted on July 8, 1978 at 11. 30 A. M. by a Board of three doctors. The same day, statements of petitioner Babulal's wife Prakash Devi and his son Vijay Kumar, Mathura Devi (Neelam's mother-in-lay) and others were recorded. On July 9, 1978, the petitioner Babulal moved an application before the S. H. O. , Kotwali, Sri Ganganagar for registering a case under Section 302, I. P. C. But no case was registered. A remark was given on this application that proceedings under Section 174, Cr. P. C. were already going on. Letters were written to the Prime Minister and the Home Minister of INdia. The C. B. I. made certain enquiries at Ganganagar regarding this case. The petitioner filed Criminal Writ petition No. 2609/83 in the Supreme Court and it was. dismissed on February 24, 1984. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a complaint against Mathura Devi, Tarasingh Kumar, Asha Rani and Mahesh Kumar under Section 302, I. P. C. in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sri Ganganagar. IN July, 1984, the case was transferred by the Chief Judicial Magistrate to the Court of Munsiff-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Sri Ganganagar, who refused to take cognizance on the report forwarded under Section 174, Cr. P. C. Against this order a revision petition was filed and it was dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge. On January 5, 1985, the Supreme Court allowed the withdrawal of the special leave petition with liberty to move the High Court. Thereafter, the present petition was filed. Para no. 2 of the petition runs as under : "that the instant petition raises substantial questions of law of great public importance and needs an authoritative decision by this Hon'ble Court: I. WHETHER in the death cases, on investigation two reports are required to be submitted; one report pertaining to apparent cause of death (the preliminary report) to be submitted under section 174 sub-section (2), to the Executive Magistrate and another Final Report on completion of investigation to be submitted under Section 173 Cr. P. C. to the concerned Judicial Magistrate competent to take cognizance ? II. WHETHER the expression every investigation under the Chapter existing in sub-section (1) of Section 173, Cr. P. C. covers the process of investigation, being carried under Section 174, Cr. P. C. also and as such a report of investigation being conducted to the type of the cases mentioned therein under Section 174, Cr. P. C. is ultimately to be submitted under Section 173, Cr. P. C. to the concerned Judicial Magistrate ? III. WHETHER the State can deprive a citizen (complainant) in State cases from the benefit of report of investigation for the purpose of courts powers to be exercised under Section 190 Cr. P. C. and place the complainant in vaccum to prove his case at his risk and responsibility inspite of the fact that there may be sufficient material in the report of investigation submitted to the concerned judicial Magistrate and take a stand before the court not to consider the report of investigation for purpose of taking cognizance? IV. WHETHER the correct interpretation of provision of sub section (2) of Section 210 Cr. P. C. make it clear that expression "police Report" occurring in it may cover even the negative Police Report also?" The second case is a writ petition filed for directing the State of Rajasthan to get the case investigated by the C. B. I. and for declaration that the report submitted under Section 174, Cr. P. C. is a police report within the meaning of Section 173 (2), Cr. P. C. and for directing the S. H. O. , Police Station Sadar (Sri Ganganagar) to submit it in the court of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sri Ganganagar for taking cognizance under Section 190, Cr. P. C. The facts of the case may be summarised thus. On July 10, 1990, a report was received from the Military Hospital, Sadhuwali Cantt. , Sri Ganganagar that on July 9,1990 at 23. 25 Hrs. , G. D. R. Taju Khan of G-Company of 21-Grennadiers was brought dead with the history of sudden death by gun-shot wound. Proceedings under Section 174, Cr. P. C. was commenced. After post-mortem examination, the dead body was given to his father (petitioner) on July 11,1990. On investigation under Section 174, Cr. P. C, it was reported that he committed suicide. On inquiry, the petitioner (father of the deceased) came to know that his son had actually been killed by his colleagues Sanwant Khan and Ajit Singh as he was not cooperating with them in their nefarious activities. The case of the petitioner is that if proper and fair investigation would have been done under Section 174, Cr. P. C. the police would have filed a challan under Section 173 (2), Cr. P. C. Similar four questions have also been raised in this writ petition. On,march 4, 1986, the learned Single Judge passed the order that this petition (first case) raises an important question as to the interpretation of Sections 173 and 174, Cr. P. C. alongwith other questions, there is no pronouncement on these questions and the case be listed before the Hon'ble Chief Justice. On March 17, 1986, the Hon'ble Chief Justice passed the order for placing it before the concerned Division Bench. By order dated October 9, 1990, passed in the second case, it was connected with the first case. The proceedings for inquest under Section 174, Cr. P. C. have a very limited scope. The object of these proceedings is to ascertain whether the person has died under suspicious circumstances or an unnatural death and if so what is the apparent cause. The question regarding the details as to how the deceased was assaulted or who assaulted him or under what circumstances he was assaulted are foreign to the ambit and scope of proceedings under Section 174. Neither any practice nor any law requires police to mention the details of the over-acts in the inquest report. Reference of P. Nariana V State of A. P. (1) may be made here. It has been held in Kuldeep Singh V State of Punjab (2) that the contents of the inquest report cannot be treated as evidence but they can be looked into to test the varacity of defence witnesses. For answering the above-quoted questions the relevant provisions are contained in Sections 2 (d), 2 (r), 190 (1), 200 and 209 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. They runs as under : "2 (d)- "complaint" means any allegation made orally or in writing to a Magistrate, with a view to his taking action under this Code, that same person, whether known or unknown has committed an offence, but does not include a police report. " 2 (r)- "police report" means a report forwarded by a police officer to a Magistrate under sub-section (2) of Section 173. " 190. Cognizance of offences by Magistrates. (1) Subject to the provisions of this Chapter, any Magistrate of the first class, and any Magistrate of the second class specially empowered in this behalf under sub-section (2) may take cognizance of any offence. (a) upon receiving a complaint of facts which constitute such offence; (b) upon a police report of such facts; (e) upon information received from any person other than a police officer, upon his own knowledge, that such offence has been committed. 200. Examination of complaint - A Magistrate taking cognizance of an offence on complaint shall examine upon oath the complainant and the witnesses present, if any, and the substance of such examination shall be reduced to writing and shall be signed by the complainant and the witnesses, and also by the Magistrate: Provided that, when the complaint is made in writing, the Magistrate need not examine the complainant and the witnesses. (a) If a public servant acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duties or a court has made the complaint; or (b) If the Magistrate makes over the case for inquiry or trial to another Magistrate under Section 192: Provided further that if the Magistrate makes over the case to another Magistrate under Section 192 after examining the complainant and the witnesses, the latter Magistrate need not re- examine them. 209. Commitment of case to Court of Session when offence is triable exclusively by it. When in a case instituted on a police report or, otherwise the accused appears or is brought before the Magistrate and it appears to the Magistrate that the offence is triable exclusively by the Court of Sessions, he shall: (a) Commit, after complying with the provisions of Section 207 or Section 208, as the case may be, the case to the Court of Sessions, and subject to the provisions of this Code relating to bail, remand, the accused to custody until such commitment has been made. (b) Subject to the provisions of this Code relating to bail, remand the accused to custody during, and until the conclusion of the trial; (c) Send to that Court the record of the case and the documents and articles, if any, which are to be produced in evidence; (d) Notify the Public Prosecutor of the commitment of the case to the Court of Sessions. " QUESTIONS NO. 1 AND 2 :
(3.) THE police is required to submit a report under Section 174 to the District Magistrate or Sub Divisional Magistrate. It is also required to submit another report under Section 173 (2), Cr. P. C. to the Judicial Magistrate if during investigation under Section 174, Cr. P. C. it is found that an offence has been committed and on further investigation under Section 173, Cr. P. C. it is found to be so. If investigation under Section 173, Cr. P. C, 1973 reveals that no offence was made out there is no question of submission of the positive report (challan) under Section 173, Cr. P. C, 1973 in respect of the same Occurrence. QUESTION NO. 3 : Report under Section 174, Cr. P. C. is submitted to a District Magistrate or Sub Divisional Magistrate who has no power to take cognizance under Section 190, Cr. P. C, 1973 even if there is sufficient material for taking cognizance. A Judicial Magistrate is competent to take cognizane on such a report if filed before him with this view and the complainant has to prove his case as required under Section 200 and 202, Cr. P. C, 1973. QUESTION NO. 4: When police report filed under Section 173 is in positive it is called Challan and when it is in negative it is called Final Report. Cognizance may be taken by a Judicial Magistrate within the meaning of Section 210 (2) of the Code even on negative police report. There is no question of applicability of Section 210 when the report submitted is under Section 174, Cr. P. C, 1973. ;